29 been declared unconstitutional. Thus, the Constitutional Court’s judgment did not establish a new normative framework, but eliminated certain Articles and subparagraphs of the anti-terrorist legislation, and urged Congress to enact norms on maximum sanctions, life imprisonment, and trials by the military courts. Norms other than those established in the judgment were added, including the nullity of trials before unidentified judges, prison benefits for those convicted of terrorism, and objections, inter alia. The new legislation includes a safeguard clause that prohibits imposing a harsher sanction than the one applied in the annulled judgment. Many individuals have been acquitted. However, Peruvian society is still sensitive to the issue of terrorism; consequently, an effort of persuasion is also needed, so that all sectors of society understand that no one should be imprisoned, unless this is the result of a “final, lawful judgment.” Prisons now respect the guiding principle for punishment: the prisoner’s rehabilitation and social reinsertion. Judgments handed down by the Constitutional Court are binding, for both the Executive and the Judiciary, which must obey them integrally. Hence, the elements that had been declared unconstitutional were eliminated from the legislation immediately. The changes in the anti-terrorist legislation occurred after the last judgment in the Lori Berenson case had been delivered by the Supreme Court in May 2002. The efforts of the next of kin to stop Lori Berenson’s trial, because she was tried by military judges, were common knowledge. This violation was repaired by annulling that proceeding. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the Documentary Evidence 77. In this case, as in others,14 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence, that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 78. The State objected to the sworn testimonial statement made by Lori Berenson before a notary public, as required by the President in an order of March 5, 2004 (supra para. 35). However, this Court admits it insofar as it correspond to its purpose, bearing in mind the State’s objections, and assesses it with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism.15 In this regard, the Court considers that, as she is the alleged victim who has a direct interest in the case, her statement must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation. As the Court has indicated, in matters concerning merits and reparations, 14 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 77; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 80; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 61. 15 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 81; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 86; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 62.